Current models do not need any prompting. You can build a plain english (markdown file) describing exactly what the agent's role and purpose is. It will continue to operate agains those instructions autonomously until it is shut down. Other agents can create and spin up new agents, with new instructions to help them complete their tasks.
Yeah, you can.
If you do, that's on you. You set it in motion. You gave it initial instructions.
Sure, but if that were the motivation, then they would be banning all foreign vehicles, not just Chinese ones.
Actually, I'm wrong. If security were the reason, then what they'd really do is ban unauditable, proprietary code from all vehicles, regardless of country of origin. If Theo de Raadt says "I checked all the code in this Chinese car and it's fine" then it's probably safer than any Chevrolet.
US businesses only cry "free market" when they're trying to kill regulatory legislation.
This is competition regulator stuff. The EU has lots of competing departments with different expectations. Privacy isn't regulated by competition regulators. But like most places, competition regulators kind of have sharp teeth.
I love a term a friend of mine used to use when talking about AI: "Narrowly superhuman" (before "superintelligence" got to be a thing).
AI is narrowly superhuman. It is able to do specific things that used to be defined as a "hallmark of intelligence" much better than a human. The easiest one? Summing numbers. It's both faster and more precise than a human.
AI gets more and more such areas it can do better than a human.
If we define "Superintelligent" to be "A computer system able to do absolutely everything we can somehow call intelligence better than any human", we will *never* have superintelligence. The things we define as intelligence will be in conflict; we'll land at the system being better at one at the cost of another.
I'm in favor with being careful about this development. But "prohibiting the development of superintelligence" isn't an option. It's already here.
Dividing the yearly US spend on Internet advertising by the number of people in the US that has Internet access gives $900-$970 spend per person per year, or $75-$81 per month.
Please choose the option you want:
1. I want to pay about $75 per month per member in my family into the ad auctions to not see any ads. Ie, keep the infrastructure, but let you opt to pay your share through money rather than attention.
2. I want to prohibit ads, and accept that everybody will have to pay for the sites they want access to, that there will be much fewer services, that there will be much higher transaction costs, and that the poor will have much less ability to access services. (Microtransactions won't solve this, due to the need for trust evaluation of same.)
3. I want some combination of 1 and 2, where some sides of ads are prohibited so it is possible to buy my way out of them at a lower price,. I accept that this will result in the loss of some services and lower access to others for the poor.
4. I want legislation that makes Internet ad blockers work more consistently. I accept that this just shifts the attention cost to other people, and have me getting the benefit without paying the cost.
5. I want to remove Internet ads and subsidize the sites through taxes.
6. I want to increase the requirements of Trust and Safety checks and format restrictions for ads, potentially accepting higher overhead (in what goes to content vs infrastructure) for less annoying/bad ads. I accept that doing this creates significant advantages of scale for ad networks.
7. Other, please describe, including where costs gets shifted with your proposal.
The above are my best attempt at listing possible options and their correct caveats. In most situations, I find ads annoying (who doesn't). Unfortunately, they are the main money highway of Internet content.
DISCLOSURE: I used to work for Google, where I rang infrastructure for stopping bad ads/advertisers and for removing fake clicks. I've also been interested at the use of sub-cent microtransactions to pay for content since the 1990s, though I've become disillusioned as I've learned more about the attention economics involved. Approving individual microtransactions has a higher attention cost than dealing with the ads, and bulking them per-site (through micro-subscriptions) will limit the number of sites that can have content.
israel-first zionist out of office.
If you have to invent things to be angry about, I'd suggest you'd get more value out of a therapist than a discussion forum, because thats a terrible way to live.
Sanders has been stridently opposed to the IDF and has called for international action to end the genocide in gaza.
Unless, you just mean "he's a jew". If so, again, therapy, not discussion forums would be my advice.
That's been the battle cry for all AI research for several years now. "If we don't do all the things, someone else will."
Yep. "If we do not commit mass-murder, somebody else will." Pretty much the same moral level, i.e. none.
It's a tool. It's what you do with it that is moral or immoral.
... we'd better get hot (ba-dum ching) and figure out carbon scrubbing and get going with full nuclear.
What's that, no? Not useful enough politically, not enough pain and penance that way?
Well, then carry on, I guess, with your no good outcomes..
Why the fuck would you embrace pain that you can easily avoid? Jesus.
Because we have to believe there will be a future. And currently our kids are not sure there will be. And I don't blame them. I felt the same way in the 1980s about nuclear brinkmanship. The difference, unfortunately was Reagan and Gorbachev got their shit together and hammered out a plan that everyone agreed was a good idea. I see no evidence of anything like that happening with climate change.
The thing is, its not THAT painful to make the changes. We know we can sort the energy bit with a combination of solar, wind, and with a bit of planning nuclear. We can transition to electric vehicles. We can reduce our carbon to essential plastics, chemicals, and food production. Theres things we CAN do but aren't. It won't save us from that 1.8c, thats a bigger more complicated project. But not making shit worse, thats entirely doable.
(Keeping in mind theres a 20-ish year lag on CO2. We're really currently doing 1990s carbon right now.)
"Use my product or else." - Oligarch
But the forced obsolescence caused by systemd is fine.
If the guardrails are so ineffectual to prevent the thing from happening, then they're not guardrails, they're guidelines.
IMO buying and selling are a matter of gambling on which way you think other people gamble.
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. - attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
